Caucus: Clinton Revises Turnout Model Up

** Hillary Clinton's team has revised its turnout model. The same senior campaign source who projected a turnout of 140,000 voters is now predicting that 150,000 voters will show, and says that, according to the turnout model the campaign is employing, Clinton will finish a strong first on the strength of turnout from Democrats. Two days ago, Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, told me that the Obama turnout model assumed about 150-155,000 people too. Clearly, the more independents who turn out, the better for Obama. The more Democrats -- the more _new_ Democrats -- the better for Hillary Clinton. An Edwards aide said the campaign predicts that 135-140,000 Dems will caucus.

And yes -- Dems -- they'll be Dems by the beginning of the caucus, because independents and Republicans will be forced to register as Democrats before they can participate.

Some turnout facts:

** 122,193 Democrats turned out in 2004.

** The 2006 primary election turned out 184,000 Democrats.

** Don't automatically assume that high turnout helps Barack Obama or assume that an increase in turnout comes from independents. Democrats, too, could caucus in record numbers, which helps the two candidates who are banking on them: Edwards and Clinton.

** There were approximately 500,000 Dems on the voter file who did not caucus in 2000 or 2004. There are 600,000 independents who tend to have weak vote history, especially in primaries.

** 17,000 to 22,000 independents became Democrats and caucused in 2004, according to estimates.

** About 1,500 Republicans turned out.

Comments

Also remember that in 2004 there was no Republican caucus so independents only had one place to go.
You would think independents would want to vote for their favorite among the big 3 but I could see Huckabee and McCain pulling some to the Republican caucus.

Posted by "Who owns the Chiefs?" | January 3, 2008 7:26 AM

I am a fifty year old man from the south and I love Hillary Clinton.

Hillary has projected a true prsidential presence. She can lead America back from the 'Nazi Style Government' we have had since the Republicans stoled the elections and/or sold FAKE VOTING MACHINES.

Posted by Norris Dwayne Whitman | January 3, 2008 8:03 AM

Well, it is certainly true that higher turnout does not necessarily favor Obama.

But the campaigns seem to agree that past a certain point, it is implausible that turnout could be that high without a large number of independents and also young people showing up. So it may be tough to call who would benefit from 150K (between Obama and Clinton--Edwards wants it lower), but it seems everyone agrees that if the caucus is up in the 180-200K range, that is very likely good news for Obama.

Posted by DTM | January 3, 2008 8:18 AM

I am an Obama supporter, but I would be surprised if turnout exceeds 150,000. I would be mildly surprised if it reaches 150,000.

We ll see.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 3, 2008 8:40 AM

It looks like Hillary just raised her expectations for tonight. It's not enbough for her to be first, she has to be a "strong first." Therefore if a candidate with the last name and institutional stregth of Hillary Clinton does not win by at least five points or so, I think she will have failed to meet the expectations she set for herself.

Ha.

On the turnout question, I say 175K +

We'll see!

Posted by RKA | January 3, 2008 8:47 AM

Isn't there the scenario which we are all forgetting where a lot of Democrats could turn out for the caucuses and Obama could win? In this scenario students turn out in record numbers and sway the caucuses. These voters are undeniably Democrats and are undeniably going for Barack Obama.

Posted by Students | January 3, 2008 9:20 AM

RKA -
You're absurd and transparent-- please stop with this crud. But look: you can make yourself laugh! Too bad it doesn't work on anybody else...

Posted by jay | January 3, 2008 9:29 AM

The gold standard: DMR:

November 2004:

Kerry 48 Bush 45

Zogby following the gold standard:

Kerry 50 Bush 45

results: Bush +5 In Iowa

--
Even though the media and the other campaigns are desperate to keep this nomination going, Hillary wins with a machine.

Posted by craigfarmer | January 3, 2008 9:46 AM

How can we entrust the future of our nation to a man who barely pierced the national scene a few years ago? Hillary is strong and capable. These others who advocate great change will not deliver. Remember Bush's mantra of being "a uniter, not a divider"?

Posted by John | January 3, 2008 9:51 AM

It looks like Hillary just raised her expectations for tonight. It's not enbough for her to be first, she has to be a "strong first."

What? Almost all the "momentum" as reported by the media is on Obama's side. I mean, the anti-Hillary Drudge Report was SCREAMING all yesterday about Obama's widening lead. There has been MASSIVE reporting about the DMR poll. Obama is harmed by not finishing first WAAAAY more than Hillary, and is harmed by not finishing STRONGLY way more than Hillary. If Edwards or Hillary manages to finish first, Obama will not be the nominee. If Obama finishes first, Hillary is still very much alive (but Edwards is done).

Posted by Loopallia | January 3, 2008 9:57 AM

A high number of Democrats is not necessarily bad for Obama, since the DMR poll had him whomping Hill and Edwards among first time Dem caucus goers, not just independents.

Posted by RaymondA | January 3, 2008 10:00 AM

Umm, guys, read the first few lines of Marc's post. It wasn't me who predicted a "strong first," it was "a senior campaign source."

Apparently someone in your camapign forgot the message of the day was to lower expectations.

If you guys can't even control your own campaign, why should we let you contriol the country?

Posted by RKA | January 3, 2008 10:09 AM

Just to throw some cold water on Marc's analysis:

"There is a clear Clinton fade," pollster John Zogby said. "None of it has been dramatic, but it has been steady."

He said Clinton, a New York senator, was losing ground to Obama, an Illinois senator, among Democrats -- as opposed to independents -- and self-described liberals.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0264367920080103

This thing is going to come down to the proverbial wire. I just Iowans actually show up in the numbers they say they are--otherwise, they shouldn't go first in 2012.

Posted by Keith | January 3, 2008 10:33 AM

It's a gut-wrenching nail-biter and any of the three could take the top or could take third place. Any of them. I suppose in about 12 hours we'll have our answer.

Posted by cms | January 3, 2008 10:49 AM

Whatever the result, I hope we Democrats can all pull together for the General Election! Let's not let there be any bad blood.

Posted by Jay'o | January 3, 2008 12:01 PM

You Hillary supporters, led by Loopy, are the ones who are absurd. Your campaign didn't even start taking Iowa seriously until Obama started kicing your butts over the summer. Once your New Hampshire firewall got called into question (Obama is even with Hillary there) suddenly Bill shows up every day and Hillary is telling Iowans that she too "feels their pain." Of course it will be a disappointment if Obama loses, but to say the bigger story will be that instead of the inevitable one, the queen of the Democrats, the establishment's candidate, losing is sheer folly and yes, absurd. If she's finishes in third place - even if by a few points - that's a HUGE story and really calls into question her candidacy. Suddenly voters who intended to vote for her in their respective primaries because she was the inevitable one will reevaluate and we've seen from past history that they climb aboard the bandwagon of the candidate with the momentum because they want to back a winner. If Obama wins tonight and New Hampshire on Jan. 8 things get really ugly for Hillary going into a state (South Carolina) where the AA voters have been looking for a candidate who actually could pull it off nationally. The MO after a New Hampshire and South Carolina victory will be darn near unstoppable going into Nevada and no Harry Reid chicanery will be able to stop it. Even his son, Hillary's Nevada director, will stand in awe of Obama's run.

Posted by Mark Billingsley | January 3, 2008 12:09 PM

Jay'o -- There will be bad blood if the Clintons manage to win the nomination. They forever tarnished their reputations when they decided to use racial slurs, not just to get ahead of Obama, but to destroy him. I have heard via a Clinton insider that their campaign's biggest fear is if she runs against McCain. McCain does appear to be making ground again and in a close race, if disaffected dems choose not to participate -- even in moderate numbers, we will have a Republican president again. And if this happens, don't even think about blaming the non-voting dems or Obama. The fault will lay entirely upon the Clintons and their desparate, disgusting slurs coming home to roost.

Posted by donna L. | January 3, 2008 12:23 PM

2 points
1. Why is Hillary considered so much more experienced than obama? Does first Lady count as experience. What positive change or impact has hillary producted since being elected senator (This is not a jab I really am interested here).
2. Why is experience considered good? Our gov't leadership is full of experience and it does not seem to be that valuable. If you want change maybe a fresh perspective is required.

I am pulling for Obama but will be open minded until it is time for me to vote.

Posted by Wolfpack | January 3, 2008 12:25 PM

just one question - please answer: What has Obama accomplished in his life that has substantially affected millions in a positive way? I know he talks well, but what is it that he has done in his life? Please don't say inspire and rally large crowds - what is it that he has accomplished?

Posted by bablan | January 3, 2008 1:14 PM

Hello Wolfpack

1. Hillary has more years in the senate than Obama. She was elected in 2000, he was elected in 2004. I think her experience as first lady is a factor as well--especially since she wasn't a typical first lady, she was much more involved in the day to day politics than most are. And even before that, she was a lawyer advicating for women's and children's rights. She has served on five senate committees. For more information on what she has accomplished look at her article on wikipedia. This is generally a neutral site, so you won't just get campain rhetoric.

2. I agree that a fresh perspective would be nice. I think that Hillary will provide that perspective--for one thing woman tend to approach things differently than men. However, I also believe that knowing how to work the system, gives you the best chance of being able to change the system.

Posted by Lori | January 3, 2008 1:33 PM

Dear Wolfpack-

I am a big clinton fan and like Hillary even more than Bill so take what I say with a grain of salt. I would be excited about Barack but I would be really nervous about experience. With Clinton's first days and with Bush's first days and with Jimmy Carter's first days, these fresh candidates got rolled by everyone inside and outside their administrations. In Bill's case Sam nunn was a real bastard and colin Powell and the joint chiefs made his head spin and took him to school.
Insider washington never gave carter a chance and this was partly because he ran against them as something new that could wash away the stink.
With Bush the inexperience made him plummet in the polls almost immediately: he had been gov of Texas but its almost a ceremonious role- literally a part-time position and he just didn't know how to do anything right there: he turned the entire apparatus of government over to cheney and his father's cronies from 12 years earlier and they took advantage of every turn.

Barack's idalism and his inexperience could make it a very ugly first couple years; the job is only a little bully pulpit and a lot of it is building coalitions and counting votes and being in a word slick. Arguably that is what the right hated about Clinton more than his essentially centralist policy - that he could manuever and two step and count votes.
the change from the Bush years was titanic in that so many of us loathed the bush reagon years and it was also generational in that he was the first boomer to win. thus he overestimated his ability to drive change openly at first. Washington shut him down and humiliated him in those first few months. Arguably then having lived through that in her eleanor R-like capacity as a very close and involved partner (thier modern marriage) and close advisor (she was considered the final hurdle for anyone trying to convnce Bill of anything) Hillary would know how to battle all that and neutralize its ability to stop her from governing in an effective way.
Why is she different from chris Rock's wife (he joked about her the other night)or a pilot's wife or a doctor's wife or barabara Bush?
Why does being a wife prepare her? her active role and her being a modern woman and a lawyer meant that unlike all these other examples or suggested parrallels hillary was attacked as constantly or more constantly as Bill and his appointed officials. She had a role much different than any first lady except Eleanor before or since. So if we accept that that is experience (and many refuse to allow that it is)then it probably better prepares her for the right wing's inevitable attacks and vetting by fire than anyone on the horizon in or out of this race. many on the left feel that what we call "swiftboating" of whomever is selected by democrats is all but certain so who has even this kind of asbestos suit to endure and survive it?
So these are the two kinds of experience some of us are worried about and some put their concerns aside and believe that barack can walk through fire but others have seen the clintons do it over and over. and some barack believers just think that the clintons alone inspired this venom from the right, that they'd leave barack alone.

Posted by Michael | January 3, 2008 3:19 PM

A close relative of "experience" is "track record" It's a given that these candidates are competent at "talking the talk." They are all offering some very seductive ideas and promises. Experience at least gives us different sources of data about a person. Not only voting history; some of the softer but equally important signs of leadership skills mentioned above (navigation inside the beltway, strength during adversity...). I find Obama very seductive in many ways and I too continue to have an open mind. But until I find enough data to ensure he is capable of "walking the walk" I will support Senator Clinton. I wish Senator Biden would catch up though. He is also one with a long track record that I find equally if not more commendable that Sen Clinton.

Posted by Catherine | January 3, 2008 3:59 PM

Whoever wins will have to govern. Bill Clinton and members of his administration would be very useful to anyone who wants to get things done, whether it is Hillary, Obama or Edwards or someone else. This makes me think that any Dem president would end up with similar policy.

Bush was the electable pretty face put on the unelectable Darth Cheney. I really don't care who the Dem face is as long as they can effectively govern.

Which candidate can most effectively throttle the EGO and get the right people giving the right advice? (It isn't about the president, it is about the people.) The one who understands this the best would govern best.

Posted by bakho | January 3, 2008 5:00 PM

Wolfpack,

I am a resident of New York City, and my family lives in the North country (border of Canada) in the same state. Hillary has been an amazing Senator for our state. Not only has she visited the upstate region than any Senator in history, but she has been a tremendous help to them as their US Senator. From getting federal money to universities in the area, to keeping army bases open, to helping move new industries into what are generally dried up communities, she has been a champion for the people of New York. This is why she won by a landslide in that overwhelmingly Republican area of the State in her last two Senate runs.

Also, I work very closely with rank-and-file and higher-ups of the first responding organizations of NYC (NYPD and FDNY), and they all agree on her concern for them - it is very real. She has fought long and hard for helathcare for 9/11 responders, and been on the forefront of getting the resources to a city that is clearly a target for our enemies.

These are just a couple ways that she has been an agent of positive change for the people of my state. She has really been quite an effective Senator for us. I am not sure why these details do not make it into her campaigns speaking points more often.

As for the experience question, I think this is a personal position. Either you think it is a boon or a bane.

Alybaba

Posted by Alybaba | January 3, 2008 5:57 PM

"** The 2006 primary election turned out 184,000 Democrats."

Do you mean midterm elections?

"and some barack believers just think that the clintons alone inspired this venom from the right, that they'd leave barack alone."

Obama cultists talk about him like he is the Messiah. They think the day he is inagurated the Right Wing Noise Machine will go out of business and the republicans in Congress will cooperate with him because he is such a nice guy. They are deluded.

Obama has not been subjected to attacks fromt the Right Wing Noise Machine and the So-Called-Liberal-Media. If he were to become the nominee they would target him and by the time they are through with him he would be lucky to carry his own state.

Obama is running on media adulation. But the media adulation will not be there during the general election. The MSM is fawning over him because they hate the Clintons. In a general election they would give him the Gore treatment. He would lose and lose on a McGovern level.

Posted by MikeB | January 3, 2008 6:14 PM

"just one question - please answer: What has Obama accomplished in his life that has substantially affected millions in a positive way? I know he talks well, but what is it that he has done in his life?"

If Obama had not been black nobody would be taking him seriously as a presidential candidate. He was in the state lege two years ago, arrived in Washington and immediately started running for president with the MSM cheering him on.

This is probably not politically correct to say but it is the truth.

A lot of limousine liberals think it is cool to vote for a black guy for president even though he is clearly not qualified for the job. It is a hipness thing.

Posted by MikeB | January 3, 2008 6:22 PM

"They forever tarnished their reputations when they decided to use racial slurs, not just to get ahead of Obama,"

What racial slurs?

According to Obama cultists anybody who doesn't support their Messiah is a racist.

When did telling the truth about someone become a "slur"? Obama has admitted to using cocaine. It is in his book. He has admitted he comes from a moslem family on his father's side. Why is it a smear to repeat what he has said himself on the record.

God forbid if Obama the Messiah became president. Any cricitism of him would be called a racial slur.

Truth is he if he had not been black nobody would take him seriously as a presidential candidate. He is running on skin color and media adulation.

Posted by MikeB | January 3, 2008 6:36 PM